Rahul Dinesh Dangore v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Ballarshah Ballarpur Police Station Chandrapur

1 aba440.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.440/2017 Rahul Dinesh Dangore ..Vs..

The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, Ballarshah / Ballarpur Police Station, Distt. Chandrapur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.P. Joshi, Adv. for the applicant.

Shri A.D. Sonak, A.P.P. for the respondent / State. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATE : 23.6.2017.

Heard.

The applicant, apprehending arrest in crime registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, has sought pre-arrest bail.

According to the investigating agency, on information, police party went to Karwa road jungle and when police party reached the spot, the applicant and co-accused Pintya Balkhande ran away, however, stock of liquor worth Rs.2,30,400/- was seized from the spot. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the story put forth by the investigating agency is unbelievable and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is identified by some one. It is further submitted that even if the accusations against the applicant are accepted, the offence under Section 65(a)

2 aba440.17 or (e) is not made out, as there is nothing on record to show that the applicant possessed the stock of liquor. The application is opposed on the ground that the applicant is a habitual offender and about 10 cases are pending against the applicant. The Advocate for the applicant has submitted that as far as the crime registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the applicant is acquitted in that case.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that other crimes are registered against the applicant and as the investigation is still going on, in my view, the applicant is not entitled for pre-arrest bail. The application is dismissed.

JUDGE Tambaskar.